Music Press Urban Myths: "The New Dylan"

The New Dylans, if they ever existed, were wiped out by an avalanche of New Pistols.

I read a couple years back that Destroyer was the new Dylan (around the time of "Streethawk") -- me and a friend saw him play, and said friend subsequently noted that he's more accurately the new Crappy Dylan; in fact, one of his songs sounded an awful lot like "Jokerman".

From AMG:

The New Dylans were a minor part of what was known as the Paisley Underground scene of the 80s. However, as they were neither NEW nor DYLANS (in fact all members had once been part of what would later become Anthrax and shared a first name: Hugh), the New Dylans failed to impress anyone but themselves.

Or

The New Dylan thing is just like the New Coke thing. It's not that they're trying to sell you something different, they just want you to remember that the original is such a "classic."

New Dylans:
Neil Young
Bruce Springsteen
Tom Petty
Jacob Dylan

New Neil Youngs:
Neil Young

New Springsteens:
John Cougar Mellencamp Rabinowitz
Steve Earle

New Tom Pettys:
Bob Dylan

I thought everyone was the new Beck, though?

And the Nude Dylans?

is it actually possible to have a new dylan. i mean, in the sense that in today's music world and market, it would be impossible for a male songwriter, however genius he was, to make as much of an impression on the music world as bob did. if bob dylan was starting out today, he may have just remained as a cult artist, despite his genius. i mean mainstream tastes just arent that cutting edge these days, and the social context of our times is so dulled out by corporate news media that it would be impossible for an artist to make such a social impact. i mean i can't imagine anyone in the public eye coming along with a song like "masters of war" today, it would doubtless be an underground thing.

Dylan sold out to the mainstream repeatedly Bob - his legend is pretty much built on it. If anything the reason there won't be a New Dylan is that there are too many Pete Seegers now.

woohoo Tom.

aw sure, dylan knew how to manipulate the press, and grossman certainly did, but i still dont think he could become such a huge public figure if he was starting out in the age of clearchannel. which i guess makes me fear for our society. things are becoming more bland, and wonderful oddities like mr dylan are becoming sidelined.

Bob Dylan wasn't a 'wonderful oddity' - he was a singer who played folk when folk was big and switched to rock when he saw where that was going. He was exceptionally good at both yes but that's not the point. The problem now isn't neccessarily that the industry is blander or more venal - Dylan started making records at the turn of the 60s for goodness sakes - it's partly that the kind of mistrust of the mainstream that has dominated discourse since Nirvana (KC being the last male songwriter to come from 'outside' and turn stuff over) means that everyone's a gatekeeper, keen to discourage people from making the kind of creative moves that might shock the old audience and win a new, bigger one.

"Nobody will make a song like Masters of War now" - well, the biggest teen-pop star in the world (probably) is currently singing on a Top 20 single which is explicitly anti-war and finds a moral equivalence between terrorists and the CIA. What more do you want?

i guess im just gonna have to disagree with you on the wonderful oddity thing. listen to the rest of the music from that folk revival, and well theres just something that sets dylan apart from most of them, its more than just folk music, and post 65 its more than just rock music. anyone with such a vital force behind their music is an oddity in my opinion. its fucking rare.

as for mr teen pop star - problem is topical songs these days tend not to be good songs (bono should just shuddup already), i mean your not gonna convince anyone with a song that is just an obvious soap box for various political ideas, i mean they'd be better off writing a pamphlet. and political idealism is kind of annoying. it has to be more than that. masters of war delivers its message far more potently, because its more poetic, it takes things back down to the human level, of blood and ashes, and thats why its famous 40 years on, its like something holy. its labeled a political song by some, but it runs far deeper than that. its not a politically idealistic song, if anything dylans topical songs seem more personally bitter than politically idealistic. and that bitterness, that bile, increases the songs effect greatly.

I love Bob Dylan, but I suspect part of the problem is that people who talk about New Dylans don't actually want a New Dylan, they want Dylan. Or they want to be alive in 1965, or want 1965 to be now or something.

If you were to argue Bob that "I think there can't be a new Dylan because Dylan was a uniquely talented individual" I might very well agree - I just don't buy that there's something endemic in public tastes or the industry now that would stop him. (Obv. he wouldn't make it big *now* because the kind of sounds he made are out of fashion, but I'm saying riding fashion wasn't a problem for Old Dylan.)

Bob there's no prohibition on bitterness in the charts - Eminem, Linkin Park.... bile aplenty no? that said, you're right no one could turn "Masters of War" into a hit today, but i don't think it's because of a clampdown on bitterness, it's because that style of songwriting is seriously out of fashion: if Dylan had tried to turn it into a hit 10 years EARLIER it wouldn't have been a hit either

x-post

God I'd forgotten Eminem who is k-pertinent. (And he's even 'gone rock' and lost his old fans too, ha ha oh)

What I wanna know is why were none of those 'new pistols' named "Noose Springsteen"?

i can see there are points here, but i dunno, maybe im just too cynical about public tastes and the industry these days. but it is stuff like pop idol that has made me cynical towards public tastes and the industry. maybe i just wish something that interests me as much as dylan would get serious public exposure today, id like to be part of a revolution rather than a cult. maybe. maybe i like the cults too.

eminem doesnt have the dylan magic IMHO, although his first album was mighty fine.

In that Dave Marsh book of rock lists there is an entire list of "New Dylans."

my favourite 'new dylan' is and will always be Donovan Leitch.
he was also one of the first 'new dylans', wasn't he?

How popular was "Masters of War" though? I mean, it wasn't ever a single, was it? It was no "Blowin' in the Wind" (which every kid in the '70s sang in choir class).

nope masters of war never was a single, and i never claimed it was a hit. but it was released by bob dylan on his first album with a reasonably high profile (freewheelin'). i was just saying its a bit too risky a track for a mainstream artist today to release on an album, because of its bluntness and conviction. (high profile celebrity political songs today just arent that convincing, posturing more than anything...whereas with dylan you have the line "and i hope that you die.. that line would probably land you in fbi custody these days.)

that song was written before vietnam, so i think he was talking about arms manufacturers not politicians.

weren't bob dylan's political songs posturing of a sort?

all music contains some posturing of some sort. and sometimes that can be a pleasing and enjoyable thing, depends on the depth of the music and the quality of the songs. in other words, posturing on its own grows tiring. thus there is a difference between bono and bob dylan

It's not an urban myth, it's lazy music writing.

It's not an urban myth, it's lazy music writing.

you obviously haven't read my seminal essay, "Why Baltimore House Music Is The New Dylan".

...you big dummy!

I thought Dylan Mills was the new Dylan.

elvis costello was the british dylan, wasn't he?